Why do confounders always work to make the COVID vaccines look unsafe? I asked an expert!

Professor Morris has been trying to tell me that the COVID vaccines are safe and the reason the data shows that the vaccines are unsafe is due to confounders. I asked why it's always one way.

Executive summary

I’ve never been able to figure out why, if the evidence showing the COVID vaccines are so unsafe is due to confounders, the confounders always act in ONE direction: to make the COVID vaccines appear unsafe. Shouldn’t it be random?

Shouldn’t I be able to find just as many first responders who have had positive COVID vaccine experiences as the number who have had negative experiences?

Why would there be a bias?

To understand this further, I asked an expert Professor Jeffrey Morris for insight.

I’m now going to reveal the answer!

Here you go

It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

Finally, here is the reason why confounders always act to make vaccines appear unsafe (when they should act randomly).

And finally we can understand why there are no success stories, you know, like “we rolled out the vaccines and people stopped dying from COVID” or “cardiac calls dropped by 1/3 after the COVID shots rolled out.”

Here’s why the confounders only act in one direction:

What the big data says

The funny thing is the BIG data says consistently Moderna is more deadly by a HUGE amount. I can’t find a single BIG study showing the reverse (30% or more ASMR the other way).

So even the BIG data is biased in ONE DIRECTION for some odd reason.

So there MUST be a confounder causing this huge bias worldwide, yet nobody in the world has a clue. It’s a huge mystery.

See my Czech Republic summary article for the independent methods showing 50% higher mortality for Moderna.

With big data, you can’t get a 30% ASMR difference unless something is CAUSING it. It will not happen just because you got a bad draw

Math doesn’t lie. Science lies. Math not so much.

When you get a 30% ASMR difference between brands as we did in the Czech Republic, unless there is a systemic or systematic bias that DELIBERATELY steered people to a certain brand, or you have cluster-randomization with a small number of clusters, you aren’t going to see big differences in mortality.

So things can shift as far as distribution to people with a brand difference in comorbidities where one month it’s one way by a small percent and another month it’s another way by a small percent, but you’re not going to see any single month where you’ll get a 30% disparity between brands and to get a disparity between brands of 30% for every 5 year age range over an entire year of shots being given out is unheard of.

So brand differences like this can only be caused by:

1. Inherent brand differences in mortality (stable over time)

2. Brand differences in mortality due to manufacturing defects (proportion of “bad batches”); can change dramatically and rapidly.

3. Systemic or systematic PREFERENTIAL brand distribution (e.g., either deliberately assessing comorbidities and assigning vaccine brand. This generally doesn’t shift quickly if at all.

4. Near perfect distribution of one brand to healthier populations and the other brand to a far less healthy population). Would require cluster randomization with a small number of clusters.

A mortality rate ratio that suddenly shifts in a matter 30 day is highly unlikely to be due to #3, unlikely to be #4, and much more likely to be due to #2.

Watch the response to this comment.

Summary

Of course. Why didn’t I see it sooner????

We can’t find any success stories of vaccine efficacy and safety because of logical fallacies! How could I have missed that? Silly me.

Basically, it doesn’t matter if you cannot find a single nursing home where mortality dropped post shot. It’s only the big data from our trusted institutions that matter. So you have to ignore the INDIVIDUAL data from all the nursing homes and instead trust that the aggregated data is correct.

So if every single nursing home reports deaths increased, if the CDC says deaths dropped based on aggregate data, that’s the data you should trust.

The population data is always true, what people are actually observing in each facility is simply pure fiction; it will be all negative because of logical fallacies.

So if every paramedic you know observes a 10x increase in cardiac arrest calls post vax rollout but the government says the shots are safe, then they are just cherry picked anecdotes.

Get it? That’s how “science” works! Always ignore what you can see and touch first hand. That’s misleading. If you want the truth, trust the numbers gathered by authorities, especially those who refuse to answer any questions about their data.

Got it?